Development of the BHP & the JMB vs Saive Myths

Dave T said:

Good luck with your campaign to erase BHP from the lexicon of gun enthusiasts, and replace it with the "Saive High Power". Seems like a hard sell to me but I have no horse in this race. Never owned one and don't want to. Every time I fired one the hammer bite was comparable to an original 1911 with the spade hammer and short grip safety. Ouch!

Dave

Click to expand...

No one is trying to erase the BHP from the lexicon and replace it with "Siave High Power". I do not understand why so many people insist on being **slow to accept the facts that are being presented.? The development of the BHP came up in another thread recently. Most of the info posted was based in myth not facts so I put together a post which states my opinion which is based in facts vs opinions like mavracer's which seem to be based on opinions only. Stating the turth behind the development of the pistol doesn't change its name. It doesn't take away from JMB legacy. It does not change the pistol it simply gives credit where credit is due.

SHOOT1SAM said:

Didn’t Colt’s hold the 1911 patents at the time of the French trials? If so, does anyone doubt that JMB wouldn’t have used his 1911 design components in the BHP, or any future pistols he might have designed? The fact that Saive incorporated some of them doesn’t detract from what he refined, from the prototype to the finished product, nor does it any way detract from the earlier influence of JMB.

As Sistema1927 stated: “The GP/P35/Hi-Power is a masterpiece, and both Browning and Saive are to be celebrated.”

Sam

Click to expand...

According to Anthony Vanderlinden : "Collectors often believe that the High Power was developed in response to the French military specifications for a new pistol in the 1920s.
Although the High Power may have its roots in the early years of the French pistol trials, its development represented a distinct and discrete branch. The pistol known as the High Power evolved under the name "Le Grand Rendement" (High Efficiency), Le Grand Rendement was the early marketing name for what would become the Grande Puissance. (High Power)." * Direct quote from his book.FN Browning Pistols

High Power was not really born until 1935. The exact spec of the early trials are not mentioned by Vanderlinden. One can assume that the patents Colt held for the 1911 were respected and in fact enforced in Europe by FN. We will never know what JMB would have done had those patents not been in place or what he would have done if he had lived long enough to see them expire.

In R Blake Stevens book The Browning High Power Automatic Pistol he states talks about secret plans of the French to modify Sprinfield bolt action rifles into some sort of semi-automatic carbine like pistol firing 7.65 X 20mm cartridges from a 32 round mag. There is however no real documentation of this. He does however state:

"The first request actually on record however, dated the 9th of May, 1921, was for a large powerful pistol, with a calibre of about 9mm, a barrel 20cm (nearly 8 inches) long. and a magazine capacity of at least 15 cartridges. The arm was to weigh not more than one kilogram (2.2lbs) and be fitted with a graduated sight adjustable for a maximum range of 600 metres. Such an arm was also to be fitted with a removable shoulder stock."

There is nothing in the spec about it being striker fired which Mavracer stated earlier in the thread. It does not address how the spec was to achieved at all. So there is not really any insight into why the two prototypes ended up the way the did beyond its size, weight, capacity and the minimum round to be fired.

For this this is an interesting exercise. I am not trying to rewrite history. I am not trying to change how we look at this pistol. I am simply hoping to bring clarity to its development. When you read Vanderlinden and Stevens books and look at the detailed diagrams you can see the evolution of this pistol. The original technical designs of the Grand Renedement you see just how different it is from the pistol fielded by the Belgians in 1935. I have kicked around this concept for years after getting these books and researching them and the gun further. I found it troubling how many myths about the pistol which are told time and time again are not backed up by facts. Many have just been repeated so many times they are gospel. For me the truth about the guns development us enlightening. I enjoy the process. I enjoy learning and refining my thoughts on the subject. That is the purpose behind this thread not to change the name or discredit JMB. I am not sure why people take it any other way.

**Edited to remove what some considered an ad hominem attack

Sistema1927 said:

It wasn't known as the "Browning Hi-Power" until 1954 when they began to be imported to the US, and even then they were made by FN, and roll marked Browning for the American market.

Click to expand...

This is true to a point. The name Browning HI Power was not used until the pistol was imported into the US using the Browning rollmark. The name the Browning High Power was used from the introduction of the pistol in Europe as the P35. The name was changed for the North American market in order to not confuse it with the Browning High Power rifle which was already sold in the US but not in Europe.

The P35 or Grande Puissance always referred to Browning. Browning's Patent Depose was on the pistol from day 1. It was later removed as rollmarks changed.

94045 said:

I guess I'm not really understanding the disagreement. That's my understanding of the basic story of the development of the HP. If a popularly accepted alternative version exist I was unaware of it.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of myths which surround the development of the pistol. Here area few examples.

• JMB designed the BHP in order to correct the mistakes he made 1911.
• JMB completed the design of the BHP on his own.
• JMB designed the pistol we shoot today.
• JMB was an employee of FN Herstal.
• The BHP was the last pistol that JMB designed and Patented.
• Many people do not know who Saive is and his contribution to the pistol we shoot today.
• People are unaware of the contractual relationship between Colt, FN & JMB and believed he marketed his designs of automatic pistols to other manufacturers.

Lots of people know the basic narrative but are slim on the details. Many of the myths get sprinkled in with the truth. This does not mean that there are not a lot of people like yourself who know the basic story and do not contribute to the myth. If you hang out on enough gun boards one or more of these myths always pop up when it comes to discussing the history of the pistol. This even happens on BHP specific boards and BHP specific sections of forums. In the end I am just trying to get facts out. People will accept the concepts or they won't.

mavracer said:

Do you have a source as to who the chief designer was in the early 20s if it wasn't Browning and wasn't Saive who was it?
Do you have a source that actually disproves my assertion about the original French specifications. I know I read it somewhere but I'll be damned if I can find anything either way. But instead of some ad hominem attack we'll just say I'm wrong so does that mean you think Browning designed a striker pistol when the spec called for a hammer?

My biggest problem with your opinion/narative isn't so much your credit to Browning's influence on the design of the P35 but the fact that you give no credit for Browning's influence on Saive.

Click to expand...

I already conceded that the idea that JMB was the lead designer has merit. He was the most prolific designer for FN at the time when it came to semi-auto pistols. I believe I amended my original post to reflect this change. I already presented source material that states there was no requirement that the pistol for the initial French trials in 1922 required a striker fired pistol. From my research the French were not specific at that time as to using a striker or a hammer to fire the pistol. Either way after further testing the French requested a hammer fired gun because the striker fired mechanism was too complicated and too hard to field strip and they required that one be able to visually verify the gun was cocked and locked.

I already stated that you were wrong regarding the striker fired requirement as far as the source material I have read. The spec did not require a particular firing mechanism. You however have been slow to accept these facts. Maybe you missed them. I used the term obtuse because "people" in this thread have been slow to accept the facts that I have presented. I did not mean it as a personal attack. I will edit the post to reflect this more clearly.

mavracer said:

So you recognize that JMB was an independent contractor who was paid by FN to design a handgun for a French trial but refuse to recognize his employment.
You now recognize that he was the lead designer on said project until his death and that Siave was a designer working on the same project and refuse to recognize that Saive was an assistant or underling.

AND I'M OBTUSE?????

Click to expand...

I have always stated that JMB was an independent contractor but he was not paid to design the pistol. He designed a pistol that if adopted and produced he would be paid a royalty on. He was paid based on production of the pistol. This agreement could be modified at any time by FN. He was not an employee. Again one has to ask have you read any source material that on the subject? Are you aware of the agreement between Colt, FN and JMB as it pertained to the development, patenting, production and payment for automatic pistols? It clearly states the relationship that JMB had with FN and Colt. I cannot say it enough times that he was not an employee. Just like a general contractor or an Uber driver paid on a 1099 is not an employee even though they receive payment for their services.

JMB was the lead designer of the prototype pistols based on Saives magazine design. Saive to my knowledge was not his assistant. JMBs brother Ed and hi son Val were JMB's assistants. In R Blake Stevens book in a letter to Stevens Val refers to himself at the age of 26 learning to become JMBs assistant in Utah. Saive was a designer and production manager at FN at the time of JMBs death. Saive had other duties at FN. He was not sitting at the feet of Le Maître. Saive did not work with JMB on the 2 prototypes. Those guns one of which was JMBs last patented design were built in Utah with Ed JMBs brother doing most of the machining. Saive was working at the FN factory at that time.

JMB did not work on the pistol again. According to Vanderlinden due to the time constraints of trans-Atlantic travel after the pistol trials of 1922 FN instructed Saive to make the changes to the prototype based on the French trial report. To quote Vanerlinden "Overall the Browning pistol performed well, but the French trials board indicated that improvements, including and external hammer and a reduction in weight , were required. The new requirements were incorporated into the design by Dieudonne Saive instead of John Browning. While this was done to save the time and cost of transatlantic travel, it resulted in Saive's taking ownership of the project. This is also backed by by R Blake Stevens.

The gun that was then presented in 1923 to the French was modified by Saive not JMB. It was Saive that made the first modification of the striker fired system to an exposed hammer. The French asked for this because one of the requirements of the contract was the ability to visually verify that the pistol was cocked and locked. The striker fired versions did not have that feature. In fact if you read the two boos closely JMB did not work on the pistol after the 2 initial prototypes. It is unclear if he was working on the pistol at the time of his death at Liege. Both Vanderlinden and Stevens state that Saive at this point was the lead designer.

I am not sure what other evidence you need to conclude that Saive was not JMBs assistant. That Saive was a contemporary designer and a colleague of JMB. Yes he was his Jr in terms of accomplishments and name recognition but no master to apprentice relationship is outlined. Again upon a re-reading of the text I would say that my position is strengthened. After the initial prototypes were created it is Saive who made the refinements to the initial design which evolved into the pistol we shoot today. Again this does not diminished JMBs contribution which IMHO is huge because the locked breech design is shared by huge majority of modern automatic pistols. The importance of this design cannot be understated. It is essential to the development of modern pistols.

If you continue to ignore what has been written, documented and presented then yes you are being slow to accept the concepts presented. This back and forth is not going anywhere. You are at this point arguing semantics not facts. You are illustrating the need for the clarity that this thread seeks to achieve. This is a great discussion and honestly as we go back and forth I have reread the material and believe I have strengthened my position.

I would ask anyone following this are there any citations indicating that JMB not Saive modified the original prototypes after the 1922 French trials? I cannot find any but would love more info even if it refutes my current position.

Nature Boy said:

The only thing I see wrong with this thread is it needs more pictures

Click to expand...

Ok this is one of my current favorite BHPs.









Here is pic of a few others.

rbernie said:

So who was ultimately responsible for that teeter-totter/rocker-in-the-slide trigger bar? I'm sure that it probably seemed like a good idea at the time to somebody, but IMO that approach depends entirely too much on frame rail / slide rail interface to maintain a consistent trigger pull and I consider it the biggest wart on the design.

Click to expand...

I can look back at the diagrams I believe the mechanism was JMB but I am not 100% sure.

larryh1108 said:

Very nice collection!
Is the one at 7:00 with the extended beavertail factory?

Click to expand...

It is a aftermarket beavertail. I was done by APW Cogan.

larryh1108 said:

I wish the factory would have made a beavertail that eliminated hammer bite. Every single BHP I fired ate me up. I look at a picture of a beautiful BHP and all I see is pain.

Click to expand...

Have you tried the C&S or Novak no bite hammer? Lots of guys will install a beavertail for you.

Nature Boy said:

I only have one

@WVsig , people may argue the finer points of your historical analysis (not me, I’ve learned a lot) but no one can doubt your passion for the BHP

Click to expand...

Thanks I love the pistol. I currently own a few more than are in that pic.

I carry this one everyday. It is an alloy gun that Don Williams of the Action Works customized for me. It has Garthwaite internals and his wide trigger. Harrison 1911 night sights. His custom thumb safety and it was refinished in NP3 and Rogard by Robar years ago.

jhb said:

why did Saive start with a 15 round magazine and change to a 13 round?



ironically and off topic i use the mecgar 15 rounders in all my hi powers and clones and they work perfectly?

Click to expand...

The French spec originally asked for 15 +1 but was later reduced to 13+1. The Mecgar 15s are good mags. The only complained I have heard is when the springs get weak the follower can tilt. In order to get the extra 2 rounds in there Mecgar changed the follower and removed the legs that keep the follower from tilting. I have used them for years and not had issues. Some people choose not to use them for carry.